Northwestern Pac. R. Co. v. Superior Court in and for Humboldt County
| Decision Date | 22 November 1949 |
| Citation | 34 Cal.2d 454,211 P.2d 571 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | . Sac. 6043, 6044. Supreme Court of California, in Bank |
Huber & Goodwin, Eureka, Robert L. Pierce, R. S. Myers and E. J. Foulds, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Everett C. McKeage, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.
Frank Thompson, City Attorney, and Arthur W. Hill, Jr., Eureka, for respondents.
Upon the filing of a condemnation suit to obtain land for the proposed extension of a street, the City of Eureka obtained an ex parte order allowing it to 'take immediate possession of the real property * * * and * * * immediately remove all obstacles and structures from said land and construct a street thereon. * * *' Folowing the denial of several motions to rescind or to vacate that order and the overruling of the railroad's demurrer to the complaint, this court granted a writ of review and also issued an alternative writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings until the question of the jurisdiction of the superior court to entertain the action is determined.
The complaint of the city, after reciting the pertinent resolution of its city council and alleging public interest and necessity, states that 'the right of way sought to be condemned herein involves the removal and relocation of certain railroad spur tracks of the defendant corporation. * * *' The railroad company takes the position that the Public Utilities Commission has exclusive, or at least original or primary jurisdiction, to determine whether there shall be an abandonment, removal, or relocation of railroad facilities. Until such an administrative determination has been made, the railroad contends, the superior court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit in eminent domain for the accomplishment of that purpose. Although the order, authorizing the taking of immediate possession of the railroad property, is stated in language broad enough to allow the removal of tracks, the city's statement in open court that it would take no such action was noted by the trial court in denying the railroad company's motions. However, the complaint states the ultimate necessity of 'removal and relocation' of the spur track, and therefore, if the Public Utilities Commission has exclusive or primary jurisdiction, the superior court had no jurisdiction to issue its order.
Article XII, section 22, of the California Constitution, authorizes the Legislature to confer powers upon the commission relating to public utilities 'unlimited by any provision of this Constitution.' Section 43(b) of the Public Utilities Act, Gen.Laws, Act 6386, states: '* * * the commission shall have the exclusive power to determine and prescribe the manner, including the particular point of crossing, and the terms of installation, operation, maintenance, use and protection of each crossing * * * of a street by a railroad or vice versa * * * and to alter, relocate or abolish by physical closing any such crossing heretofore or hereafter established.' General order No. 36-B issued by the commission pursuant to section 15 of the act provides that 'no railroad corporation shall abandon or remove any depot, platform, siding, spur or other facility except upon thirty (30) days' notice to the public and to the Commission.' It is argued by the petitioner that these enactments give exclusive jurisdiction to the commission to make the primary determination of public necessity and convenience where the question at issue concerns the installaction of a crossing over railroad tracks or the relocation of any of its facilities.
The city, which has operated under a freeholder's charter since 1895, relies upon section 23 of Article XII of the Constitution, which declares that 'this section shall not affect such powers of control over public utilities as relate to the making and enforcement of local, police, sanitary and other regulations, other than the fixing of rates, vested in any * * * incorporated city or town * * *.' It is argued that the extension of a street is a municipal affair within the vested power retained by the city and its charter, which antedates both the quoted provision of the Constitution and the Public Utilities Act. Supporting this contention are several decisions which have sustained, as involving municipal affairs, proceedings to condemn rights of way across existing railroad tracks for the purpose of extending streets. City of Los Angeles v. Central Trust Co., 173 Cal. 323, 327, 159 P. 1169 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County
...301, 305, 2 P.2d 756, 79 A.L.R. 291; Gorbacheff v. Justice's Court, 31 Cal.2d 178, 180, 187 P.2d 407; Northwestern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.2d 454, 458, 211 P.2d 571; Brown v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.2d 559, 212 P.2d 878. Alexander v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App. 312, 316, 266......
-
People By Public Utilities Commission v. City of Fresno
...(Cal.Const., art. XII, § 23; Television Transmission v. Public Util.Com., 47 Cal.2d 82, 301 P.2d 862; Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. v. Superior Ct., 34 Cal.2d 454, 211 P.2d 571). Thus, in the absence of specific legislation to the contrary, the commission has no jurisdiction to regulate public......
-
Harden v. Superior Court In and For Alameda County
...forecloses the court from exercising its constitutional and statutory power to entertain the proceeding.' In Northwestern Pac. R. Co. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.2d 454, 211 P.2d 571, prohibition was granted because of the failure of the plaintiff to comply with statutory preliminaries to mai......
-
People v. Superior Court of Sacramento County
...in the refund proceedings. (Miller v. Railroad Commission, 9 Cal.2d 190, 195, 70 P.2d 164, 112 A.L.R. 221; Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. v. Superior Ct., 34 Cal.2d 454, 458, 211 P.2d 571; see also Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.2d 426, 428-430, 34 Cal.Rptr. 673, 386 P.2d 233......